Rene.Glad@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Hi Moose!
>
>Your samples makes me wonder - there is a significant difference in details.
>Could this be related to the scanning process of the 35mm developed picture?
>
>
Not sure what you mean. There is clearly a bit more detail in the film
scan than the digital image in some areas that are equally in focus.
However, the grain tends to obscure the detail. If you refer to the
grain, I believe this could be realted to the film scanning process.
Grain aliasing is where the apparent grain in the scan is in fact the
result of "beat" interaction between the smaller actual grain and the
scanning linear frequency. This may be happening here with 4000 dpi and
the particular grain characteristics of Agfa Vista 200. I'm planning to
run some tests at other dpis and perhaps even on a different scanner.
>If you compaire the developed 35mm picture
>
I assume here you mean a 'wet' print? As in my reply to Scott and the
sample posted there, I don't think a wet print adds anything to the
comparison.
> with a print-out of the digital picture is there still the same remarkable
> difference?
>
>
I haven't made a digital print of either image as yet. Remember that the
full pixel samples from the 300D would produce an 8.6x12.8 in. print at
240 dpi and those from the film scan would produce a 16x24 print. I
don't think a comparison of 4x6 prints (and I'm not paying for a bigger
custom wet print) would mean anything as a comparison.
Thanks for looking
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|